ORDER Dipak Misra, J. In this appeal preferred u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited, has called in question the legal validity of the award dated 14-10-1996 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case No. 32/94. The respondent No. 1 as claimant filed an application for grant of compensation for the death of her husband, Girdharilal Verma, a diesel mechanic in South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) in Kusmunda Project. The widow putforth the claim on her behalf and as well as on behalf of her minor children, a daughter aged about 6 years and son aged about 4 years. It was putforth in the claim petition that on 24-10-1994 the deceased was driving his brother's scooter bearing registration No. MP-26A/4982 and one Naresh Kumar Verma was sitting as a pillion rider. While they were proceeding towards Korba from Nahar, at about 2.00 p.m. a Bus bearing registration No. MP-26/8814 being driven by respondent No. 3 herein, Dineshwar Prasad Dubey, was coming from the direction of Bilaspur. It hit the scooter as a result of which the deceased, Girdharilal, became unconscious and eventually succumbed to his injuries. It was alleged that the vehicle was owned by Santosh Singh and Shiv Kumar Singh and was insured with the present appellant. It was pleaded that the offending Bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It was pleaded that the deceased was a qualified mechanic and aged about 27 years and was working in SECL and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/-. The claimants putforth that they were totally dependent on the deceased who would have contributed to the family upto the age of 60 years and on the said basis and on account of their mental agony and sufferings a claim of Rs. 6,65,000/- was advanced towards compensation. During the proceeding before the Tribunal the owner of the vehicle, Santosh Singh and driver, Dineshwar, as well as Shiv Kumar Singh, the insured, remained absent and the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them. The Insurance Company resisted the claim of the claimants by disputing the allegations made in the claim petition. 6,65,000/- was advanced towards compensation. During the proceeding before the Tribunal the owner of the vehicle, Santosh Singh and driver, Dineshwar, as well as Shiv Kumar Singh, the insured, remained absent and the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them. The Insurance Company resisted the claim of the claimants by disputing the allegations made in the claim petition. It was setforth by the Insurer that Santosh Singh was registered as owner of the vehicle but the Bus in question was insured in the name of respondent No. 4, and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner. It was also putforth that the driver was driving the vehicle without valid licence, and therefore, there was a fundamental breach of the policy for which the Insurance Company was entitled to be absolved. The Tribunal framed as many as 10 issues. On behalf of the claimants the wife of the deceased and Naresh Kumar Verma were examined. Insurance Company did not adduce any oral evidence. However, the policy in question was brought on record. The learned Tribunal on scrutiny of the oral, documentary and medical evidence came to hold that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 2, namely, Dineshwar Prasad Dubey; there was no negligence on the part of the deceased or the pillion rider; the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/-; the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No. 3; they were running the vehicle in partnership and the claimants were entitled to Rs. 3,65,000/-. No evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company that the non-applicant No. 2 was driving the vehicle without licence. Being of this view the Tribunal allowed Rs. 3,65,000/- towards compensation with 12% interest from 5-12-1994 i.e. the date of application. Assailing the award Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the liability of the Insurance Company inasmuch as the vehicle belonged to Santosh Singh the respondent No. 2, herein, whereas Shiv Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4, was the policy holder, and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify. It is his further submission that in absence of privity of contract between the appellant and respondent No. 2 who was the owner of the vehicle, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company. It is also highlighted by Mr. It is his further submission that in absence of privity of contract between the appellant and respondent No. 2 who was the owner of the vehicle, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company. It is also highlighted by Mr. Ruprah that the policy was obtained on misrepresentation of facts, and hence, the appellant deserves to be exonerated. It is also canvassed by the learned Counsel that the contesting Defendants remained ex parte, and therefore, permission should be granted to the appellant as enjoined u/s 170 of the Act to raise all possible defences. Lastly, it was proponed by Mr. Ruprah that the amount awarded is excessive. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar we have carefully perused the award passed by the Tribunal. The main plank of argument of Mr. Ruprah is that the vehicle stood in the name of Santosh Singh and policy was issued in favour of Shiv Kumar Singh. The policy has been brought on record. In presence of Mr. Ruprah we have perused the policy. The policy reflects that it has been issued in the name of Shiv Kumar Singh, Shiv Travels, Bus Stand, Bilaspur. PW. 2, Naresh Kumar Verma, has categorically stated that he had seen the offending Bus at the time of accident and the same belonged to M/s Shiv Travels. He has also stated that Shiv Travels belongs to Santosh Kumar Singh and Shiv Kumar Singh. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence have come to hold that the vehicle stood in the name of non-applicant No. 1, Santosh Singh, but was insured in the name of non-applicant No. 4. The Tribunal has drawn inference that M/s Shiv Travels was a partnership firm, and therefore, the policy was granted to Shiv Kumar Singh, Shiv Travels. The Insurance Company was very much aware of the fact that the vehicle did not belong to Shiv Kumar Singh but to Santosh Kumar Singh in spite of that it issued an insurance policy and mentioned Shiv Travels. Thus, in effect, the Insurance Company was completely conscious that it had issued the policy in the name of the firm. Hence, we are not inclined to dislodge the finding of the Tribunal on this score. The second limb of argument of Mr. Ruprah is that the driver of the vehicle did not have the valid licence. Thus, in effect, the Insurance Company was completely conscious that it had issued the policy in the name of the firm. Hence, we are not inclined to dislodge the finding of the Tribunal on this score. The second limb of argument of Mr. Ruprah is that the driver of the vehicle did not have the valid licence. On a perusal of the evidence on record we find that nothing substantial has been brought on record to establish such a plea. The onus is on the Insurance Company to prove by cogent evidence that the driver did not have a valid licence. On the contrary, we find from Annexure-A-7 that Dineshwar Prasad Dubey son of Shri Jogeshwar Prasad Dubey was authorised to drive the vehicle as he was bearing a Badge No. 425 at the time of accident. Hence, the plea of learned Counsel for the appellant is without much substance. The last plank of submission of Mr. Ruprah is that the award granted by the Tribunal is excessive, and therefore, the Insurance Company should be granted permission u/s 170 of the Act to contest the same by raising all the defences. The aforesaid submission though looks attractive on the first flush, it has no substance. The Insurance Company was very much aware that the owner and driver of the vehicle had remained ex parte before the Tribunal. It could have sought written permission from the Tribunal to raise all the defences which were opened to be raised by the owner and the driver. In this context, we may profitably refer to section 170 of the Act which reads as under:-- "170. Impleading insurer in certain cases. -- Where in the course of inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that:-- (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made; or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. Impleading insurer in certain cases. -- Where in the course of inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that:-- (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made; or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made." The aforesaid section came to be interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Shankarayya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1998 Supp SC 2968. We may usefully reproduce a relevant passage from the aforesaid judgment:-- "4. It clearly shows that the Insurance Company when impleaded as party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mention in the section are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the Insurance Company has to obtain order in writing from the Tribunal which should be reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless that procedure is followed the Insurance Company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. It is true, that the claimants themselves had joined respondent No. 1-Insurance Company in the claim petition that was done with a view to thrust the statutory liability on the Insurance Company on account of the contract of insurance. That was an order of Court itself permitting the Insurance Company which was impleaded to avail of a larger defence on merits on being satisfied on the aforesaid two conditions mentioned in section 170. Consequently, it must be held that on the facts of the present case, respondent No. 1 -Insurance Company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits of the claim which was awarded by the Tribunal." In view of this we have no doubt in mind that the contention raised by Mr. Ruprah is to be noted to be rejected. Consequently, it must be held that on the facts of the present case, respondent No. 1 -Insurance Company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits of the claim which was awarded by the Tribunal." In view of this we have no doubt in mind that the contention raised by Mr. Ruprah is to be noted to be rejected. As all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant are devoid of substance the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.